Hindu wedding event attacked in 'Muslim area' of Ahmedabad; attendees brutally assaulted over playing religious bhajans during Ramadan
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 
19 February, 2026
Case Summary
In Ahmedabad, Gujarat, a Hindu wedding event was attacked, and attendees were brutally assaulted by Muslims over playing religious songs such as mangal geet and bhajans dedicated to Lord Ram, a revered Hindu deity. The attackers assaulted attendees, including women; they also vandalised the wedding venue and vehicles. The Muslims also threatened Hindus not to play religious songs and declared that this was a "Muslim area" where Hindu bhajans could not be played, particularly during Ramadan. According to media reports, this occurred on 20th February 2026 at the Vande Mataram Party Plot near Shaharkotda Voranagar Roza in Ahmedabad. Members of the Muslim community, who lived nearby, objected to the playing of Lord Shri Ram's hymns during a Hindu wedding ceremony. This led to a verbal altercation between Hindus and Muslims. The situation soon escalated as the Muslim group began pelting stones at the Hindu wedding party and assaulted attendees present. They also vandalised several vehicles, leading to a clash between the Hindu and Muslim groups. This injured many Hindu attendees, including women. Some victims stated that the Muslims asserted, "This is a Muslim area; you cannot play your religious bhajans here during Ramadan." Subsequently, this disrupted the entire marriage event, and it was called off. The police were informed, and they arrived at the scene. Both parties filed complaints at the Shaherkotda police station regarding this incident, which took place in the Potlia Char Rasta area. Meanwhile, after the marriage was called off, the Hindu family members, along with other members of the Hindu community, gathered at the Shaherkotda police station on 21st February 2026 to protest, carrying banners and posters. The victims demanded justice and the arrest of the Muslim attackers.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
This case is being added to the tracker under the primary category- Restriction/ban on Hindu practices. The subcategory selected is- Restriction on expression of Hindu identity. An example of the state-affected prejudicial and targeted orders against the Hindu community would be a government denying the right of a Hindu or a group of Hindus to hold a religious procession owing to the animosity of non-Hindu groups. Denial of the religious right of the Hindus to assuage the non-Hindu group which harbours animosity to a point where it could lead to violence against Hindus is not only a failure of law and order but is a prejudicial order against Hindus, denying them their fundamental rights to express their religious identity. An example of a hate crime against Hindus by a non-Hindu would be a non-Hindu institution forcing its Hindu employees to abandon religious symbols that a Hindu would wear as an expression of faith owing to inherent prejudice against the faith professed by the victim or a non-Hindu group of people restricting a Hindu group from constructing a place of worship simply because the demography of the area in which the temple is being built is dominated by non-Hindus. Such actions are driven by religious animosity and/or prejudice against Hindus and their faith and would therefore be categorized as a hate crime. Another primary category selected is- Attack not resulting in death. The subcategory selected is- Attacked for Hindu identity. In several cases, Hindus are attacked merely for their Hindu identity without any perceived provocation. A classic example of this category of religiously motivated hate crime is a murder in 2016. 7 ISIS terrorists were convicted for shooting a school principal in Kanpur because they got ‘triggered’ seeing the Kalava on his wrist and tilak that he had put. In this, the Hindu victim had offered no provocation except for his Hindu religious identity. The motivation for the murder was purely religious, driven by religious supremacy. Such cases where Hindus are targeted merely for their religious identity would be documented as a hate crime under this category. The other subcategory selected is- Attack for crossing 'Muslim area'. One of the reasons that Hindus get attacked unprovoked specifically by Islamists is for crossing ‘Muslim areas’. Essentially, Muslim mobs often attack Hindus crossing or present in certain areas which have a majority Muslim population. It has often been cited as one of the reasons to blame Hindus for attacks against themselves, signalling that Hindus displaying religious symbols, taking our religious processions or crossing any area which is dominated by Muslim residents is a provocation in and of itself. These areas are mostly ghettoized areas where mobs mobilize quickly to attack Hindus for a variety of reasons like playing music during a religious procession, crossing a mosque, wearing a tilak or any other religious symbol in a Muslim-dominated area, praying at a local temple in that area etc. There have been cases where the few local Hindus of that area have been attacked on their way to the Temple for prayers as well, simply because the area is considered a Muslim-dominated area. Several times, it is entirely possible that the immediate trigger for the violence against Hindus was non-religious in nature, however, the violence became religiously motivated in nature because the area was Muslim dominated and the residents on the whole harboured animosity towards Hindus, evidenced from the actions of the mob, the slogans, and the nature of the attack. Such crimes are motivated by the religious identity of the victims and are therefore classified as hate crimes under this category. The other subcategory selected is- Communal Clash/Attack. Communal clash is a form of collective violence that involves clashes between groups belonging to different religious identities. For a communal clash between Hindus and non-Hindus to qualify as a religiously motivated hate crime, the trigger of the violence itself would have to be anti-Hindu in essence. For example, if there is a Hindu religious procession that comes under attack from a non-Hindu mob and after the initial attack, Hindus retaliate in self-defence, leading to a communal clash between the two religious communities. While at a later stage, both communities are involved in the clash/violence, the initial trigger of the violence was by the non-Hindu mob against the Hindus and therefore, it could safely be termed as an anti-Hindu violence. Further, the trigger would also have to be religiously motivated. In the cited example, the attack by the non-Hindu mob was against religious processions and therefore, can be concluded to be religiously motivated. In some cases, the trigger may be non-religious, however, it develops into religious violence against Hindus at a later stage. In such cases too, the foundational animosity towards Hindus becomes the motivating factor of the crime and therefore, it would be classified as a religiously motivated hate crime against Hindus under this category. Another primary category selected is- Attack on Hindu religious representations. The subcategory selected is- Defiling religious customs. Sanatan Dharma is not a religion of one book, which is to say that while it has religious scriptures that form the central tenets of the faith, there are several traditions followed through thousands of years, mostly passed from generation to generation orally. There are several such customs and traditions that are followed by various Hindus and Hindu sects. Defiling of these traditions and customs is a breach of an individual or group’s religious practices. Such practices can range from dietary restrictions like not eating non-vegetarian food for a certain period of the year, not eating non-vegetarian food at all, not eating beef since the cow is considered holy in Hinduism, the sanctity of religious customs followed in the house (like many ISCKON devotees), etc. Any malicious action leading to the breach of such traditions or defilement of these traditions owing to animosity towards the faith or for the sake of activism stems not only from the lack of faith in the religion itself but also from disregard for the faith of the devotees who follow the customs/traditions and implicit bias against the faith, the tradition itself. Since these specific traditions are central to the faith of the devotees of that specific sect of Hindus, any non-compliance with these traditional rules would be considered a religiously motivated hate crime. This case stands as a clear instance of a religiously motivated hate crime, as a Hindu wedding event in Ahmedabad suffered a brutal attack by Muslims specifically over the playing of mangal geet and Ram bhajans, sacred Hindu religious hymns and songs. The Muslim perpetrators demanded that Hindu devotees cease playing Ram bhajans, sparking a verbal altercation that rapidly escalated into physical violence where they assaulted Hindu attendees, including women, pelted stones, and vandalised vehicles. This targeted aggression against the public expression of Hindu devotion during a joyous wedding ceremony reveals the perpetrators' intent to suppress and punish Hindus for their faith. The attack centred on the playing of Ram bhajans and mangal geet, which hold profound religious significance in Hinduism. Mangal geet are auspicious wedding songs invoking blessings for marital harmony, while Ram bhajans honour Lord Rama, the epitome of dharma and an object of veneration for millions of Hindus. By objecting to and forcibly restricting these sacred elements during a Hindu wedding, the perpetrators demonstrated deep-seated religious animosity towards any public display of Hindu identity. Such revered aspects of Hindu weddings represent core cultural and spiritual traditions, and the Muslim attackers' intolerance for their mere utterance exposes their hatred for Hindu religious expression, transforming a simple act of devotion into grounds for violence and marking this as a quintessential hate crime. Furthermore, the attack was unmistakably religiously motivated, with Hindu devotees savagely targeted for their Hindu identity. The brutal communal violence they endured simply for playing Hindu bhajans at a Hindu event underscores the perpetrators' visceral hatred towards the Hindu community. The rapid escalation and readiness to assault Hindus, vandalise property, and injure attendees indicate this was no spontaneous outburst but a premeditated strike against their religious identity. Such assaults on Hindus stem directly from religious animosity towards their faith and community, laying bare the Muslim perpetrators' bigotry and hatred in stark relief. It is also crucial to note that the Muslim perpetrators threatened Hindus by declaring, "This is a Muslim area; you cannot play your religious bhajans here." This disturbing assertion of a "Muslim area" recurs in numerous cases where Muslims in significant numbers deem localities exclusively theirs. It demonstrates a profound sense of Islamic supremacy, with the attackers viewing the vicinity as a Muslims-only zone where non-Muslims, especially Hindus, have no right to practise their faith openly. This entitlement and superiority complex reflect entrenched religious prejudice and a drive to dominate public spaces, fuelling the assault on Hindu devotees out of contempt for their presence. Their unprovoked assumption of territorial control and subsequent violence against bhajan-playing Hindus exemplify an Islamic supremacist mindset that dehumanises and excludes Hindus, rendering this a textbook case of religiously motivated animosity. Additionally, the fact that the perpetrators explicitly stated that Hindus could not play Ram bhajans during Ramadan time reveals their brazen attempt to assert religious supremacy and dominate public spaces, marking this as a clear case of religiously motivated hate crime. By dictating that Hindu wedding celebrations must bow to their Ramadan prayers, they showcased deep religious animosity, positioning their faith as superior and demanding submission from Hindus in their own cultural practices. This targeted prohibition of Ram bhajans, a sacred expression of Hindu devotion, during a joyous family event was not a mere neighbourly dispute but a deliberate power play to humiliate and suppress Hindu religious expression, enforcing Islamic dominance over shared community life. The forcible disruption of the wedding, which was ultimately called off, constituted a desecration of a sacred Hindu custom. In Hinduism, marriage is a holy sacrament symbolising the soul's union and familial continuity, celebrated with rituals and devotional music like bhajans to invoke divine grace. By shattering this sanctity through violence, the perpetrators showed utter contempt for Hindu religious customs and faith, wilfully profaning a pivotal life event and religious custom. This deliberate interference elevates the incident beyond mere disturbance, confirming it as a hate crime aimed at eroding Hindu practices and intimidating the Hindu community. This incident meets every parameter of a hate crime through its targeted religious provocation, brutal physical assault, supremacist territorial claims, and desecration of Hindu traditions. Therefore, it merits inclusion in the Hinduphobia Tracker's hate crime database.
Case Status
Complaint filed
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Muslim Extremists
Perpetrators Range
Unknown
Perpetrators Gender
both
Sources 
